Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
Of course alcohol can be an aggravating contribution but that genie is out of the bottle, do you think weed has less impact?
It is a gateway drug, normalise it’s use and people will look for that stronger hit, people who may otherwise not consider it. Much the same as vaping is considered safe it seems there has been a lot of good work in reducing smoking being overturned.
Your two locations suffer not just from alcohol but drugs, weed is not safe the compounds can and do lead to psychological issues and despite the bulls
t, can lead to dependency.
Legalisation will definitely lead to a larger uptake in younger people and this will impact on their brains development
https://youtu.be/q8jJsyZhRyc
Am I ignoring beer and cigarettes? Yes, as they are legal so don’t form part of the rational debate. But talking about pot, sure cpd May be beneficial but the rest of the drug not so cool or safe.
As we know thc is the chemical that gets one high but this also leads to anxiety and contributes to psychosis. This is countered by cpd but typically the potencies don’t match.
You can spot a stoner a mile off, usually claiming they need weed to calm their nerves when it’s the weed causing the damage.
It is a gateway drug, normalise it’s use and people will look for that stronger hit, people who may otherwise not consider it. Much the same as vaping is considered safe it seems there has been a lot of good work in reducing smoking being overturned.
Your two locations suffer not just from alcohol but drugs, weed is not safe the compounds can and do lead to psychological issues and despite the bulls
t, can lead to dependency. Legalisation will definitely lead to a larger uptake in younger people and this will impact on their brains development
https://youtu.be/q8jJsyZhRyc
Am I ignoring beer and cigarettes? Yes, as they are legal so don’t form part of the rational debate. But talking about pot, sure cpd May be beneficial but the rest of the drug not so cool or safe.
As we know thc is the chemical that gets one high but this also leads to anxiety and contributes to psychosis. This is countered by cpd but typically the potencies don’t match.
You can spot a stoner a mile off, usually claiming they need weed to calm their nerves when it’s the weed causing the damage.
George Smiley said:
You can spot a stoner a mile off
Oh really? I would wager you know at least a couple, but have no idea they smoke.I've worked with a guy for the last 4 years, and only recently found out that he smokes, and even as a smoker myself, I had absolutely no clue beforehand.
Does everyone who drinks alcohol swagger around off their face drunk at 11am clutching a 4 pack of special brew?
Some people's perceptions of modern cannabis users are so wide of the mark that it is, frankly, hilarious.
George Smiley said:
Of course alcohol can be an aggravating contribution but that genie is out of the bottle, do you think weed has less impact?
It is a gateway drug, normalise it’s use and people will look for that stronger hit, people who may otherwise not consider it. Much the same as vaping is considered safe it seems there has been a lot of good work in reducing smoking being overturned.
Your two locations suffer not just from alcohol but drugs, weed is not safe the compounds can and do lead to psychological issues and despite the bullst, can lead to dependency.
Legalisation will definitely lead to a larger uptake in younger people and this will impact on their brains development
https://youtu.be/q8jJsyZhRyc
Am I ignoring beer and cigarettes? Yes, as they are legal so don’t form part of the rational debate. But talking about pot, sure cpd May be beneficial but the rest of the drug not so cool or safe.
As we know thc is the chemical that gets one high but this also leads to anxiety and contributes to psychosis. This is countered by cpd but typically the potencies don’t match.
You can spot a stoner a mile off, usually claiming they need weed to calm their nerves when it’s the weed causing the damage.
George there's a smattering of truth in what you say however it's not quite as bad as you make out.It is a gateway drug, normalise it’s use and people will look for that stronger hit, people who may otherwise not consider it. Much the same as vaping is considered safe it seems there has been a lot of good work in reducing smoking being overturned.
Your two locations suffer not just from alcohol but drugs, weed is not safe the compounds can and do lead to psychological issues and despite the bulls
t, can lead to dependency. Legalisation will definitely lead to a larger uptake in younger people and this will impact on their brains development
https://youtu.be/q8jJsyZhRyc
Am I ignoring beer and cigarettes? Yes, as they are legal so don’t form part of the rational debate. But talking about pot, sure cpd May be beneficial but the rest of the drug not so cool or safe.
As we know thc is the chemical that gets one high but this also leads to anxiety and contributes to psychosis. This is countered by cpd but typically the potencies don’t match.
You can spot a stoner a mile off, usually claiming they need weed to calm their nerves when it’s the weed causing the damage.
Gateway Drug - you don't take weed and then graduate, people take the drugs that suit the lifestyle - Claret and ciggies for you, a burner and IPA for me, crack and Broon for the more self-destructive rapscallions amongst us. Do some people graduate? Yes. Would they have gone to heroin etc anyway? Most likely - there are likely underlying issues far stronger than a blunt at play. Is graduation typical? Of course not, look at the figures. Does having to go to via a criminal network potentially expose you to access to stronger drugs? Yes, potentially - best thing to do then is cut out the criminal network...
Psychological damage - Yes, some people with underlying problems may find that these become exacerbated, especially with high-dose compounds. This isn't typical though, by a long chalk. Legalisation will come with a. education b. warnings c. moderate dosages d. more money to invest in the health-care issues - these people are already in this situation - best we educate and support rather than deny and criminalise, wouldn't you agree?
Bulls
t - there is extremely scant evidence for physical dependency - there may be psychological dependency to a degree, see above.Young People - yes, vitally important to be aware that any drug (incl the famous two you don't want to talk about) can affect the brain during its development period. The situation at the moment means that the supply is open to young people, so what to do? Shut down supply? Impossible and has been tried without any success for decades. Legalise it? Legalisation would mean it was only sold to over-18s (I personally would advocate 21 yrs) but that still leaves the problem of those under-age and getting it from the criminal supply. With additional funding for police and tougher measures for 'illegal sellers', reality-based education [kids can smell bulls
t a mile away], and a bit of cultural engineering we may at least impact a problem that exists already that we aren't dealing with very effectively. And by the way, legalisation in other countries (and admittedly cultures) has led to an eventual decline in overall drug use in general amongst young people after a slight rise post-legalisation. Stereotypical Imagery - I'm not sure whether you were being entirely serious about your last comment, however unless you're exaggerating for effect, I can only imagine you've only ever interacted (knowingly) with a fringe of users. I don't think it's an accurate view of the total situation at all, which isn't helpful if you're trying to seek to improve the situation.
In all of this George consider - drugs don't come without problems - even the two that shan't be mentioned - legalisation doesn't come without problems, but if those problems are perhaps fewer and more controllable than keeping the drug illegal, shouldn't we consider it? People are doing it regardless George, all the issues you state above are already here, we just aren't dealing with them very well.
andy_s said:
George there's a smattering of truth in what you say however it's not quite as bad as you make out.
Gateway Drug - you don't take weed and then graduate, people take the drugs that suit the lifestyle - Claret and ciggies for you, a burner and IPA for me, crack and Broon for the more self-destructive rapscallions amongst us. Do some people graduate? Yes. Would they have gone to heroin etc anyway? Most likely - there are likely underlying issues far stronger than a blunt at play. Is graduation typical? Of course not, look at the figures. Does having to go to via a criminal network potentially expose you to access to stronger drugs? Yes, potentially - best thing to do then is cut out the criminal network...
Psychological damage - Yes, some people with underlying problems may find that these become exacerbated, especially with high-dose compounds. This isn't typical though, by a long chalk. Legalisation will come with a. education b. warnings c. moderate dosages d. more money to invest in the health-care issues - these people are already in this situation - best we educate and support rather than deny and criminalise, wouldn't you agree?
Bullst - there is extremely scant evidence for physical dependency - there may be psychological dependency to a degree, see above.
Young People - yes, vitally important to be aware that any drug (incl the famous two you don't want to talk about) can affect the brain during its development period. The situation at the moment means that the supply is open to young people, so what to do? Shut down supply? Impossible and has been tried without any success for decades. Legalise it? Legalisation would mean it was only sold to over-18s (I personally would advocate 21 yrs) but that still leaves the problem of those under-age and getting it from the criminal supply. With additional funding for police and tougher measures for 'illegal sellers', reality-based education [kids can smell bullst a mile away], and a bit of cultural engineering we may at least impact a problem that exists already that we aren't dealing with very effectively. And by the way, legalisation in other countries (and admittedly cultures) has led to an eventual decline in overall drug use in general amongst young people after a slight rise post-legalisation.
Stereotypical Imagery - I'm not sure whether you were being entirely serious about your last comment, however unless you're exaggerating for effect, I can only imagine you've only ever interacted (knowingly) with a fringe of users. I don't think it's an accurate view of the total situation at all, which isn't helpful if you're trying to seek to improve the situation.
In all of this George consider - drugs don't come without problems - even the two that shan't be mentioned - legalisation doesn't come without problems, but if those problems are perhaps fewer and more controllable than keeping the drug illegal, shouldn't we consider it? People are doing it regardless George, all the issues you state above are already here, we just aren't dealing with them very well.
Good postGateway Drug - you don't take weed and then graduate, people take the drugs that suit the lifestyle - Claret and ciggies for you, a burner and IPA for me, crack and Broon for the more self-destructive rapscallions amongst us. Do some people graduate? Yes. Would they have gone to heroin etc anyway? Most likely - there are likely underlying issues far stronger than a blunt at play. Is graduation typical? Of course not, look at the figures. Does having to go to via a criminal network potentially expose you to access to stronger drugs? Yes, potentially - best thing to do then is cut out the criminal network...
Psychological damage - Yes, some people with underlying problems may find that these become exacerbated, especially with high-dose compounds. This isn't typical though, by a long chalk. Legalisation will come with a. education b. warnings c. moderate dosages d. more money to invest in the health-care issues - these people are already in this situation - best we educate and support rather than deny and criminalise, wouldn't you agree?
Bulls
t - there is extremely scant evidence for physical dependency - there may be psychological dependency to a degree, see above.Young People - yes, vitally important to be aware that any drug (incl the famous two you don't want to talk about) can affect the brain during its development period. The situation at the moment means that the supply is open to young people, so what to do? Shut down supply? Impossible and has been tried without any success for decades. Legalise it? Legalisation would mean it was only sold to over-18s (I personally would advocate 21 yrs) but that still leaves the problem of those under-age and getting it from the criminal supply. With additional funding for police and tougher measures for 'illegal sellers', reality-based education [kids can smell bulls
t a mile away], and a bit of cultural engineering we may at least impact a problem that exists already that we aren't dealing with very effectively. And by the way, legalisation in other countries (and admittedly cultures) has led to an eventual decline in overall drug use in general amongst young people after a slight rise post-legalisation. Stereotypical Imagery - I'm not sure whether you were being entirely serious about your last comment, however unless you're exaggerating for effect, I can only imagine you've only ever interacted (knowingly) with a fringe of users. I don't think it's an accurate view of the total situation at all, which isn't helpful if you're trying to seek to improve the situation.
In all of this George consider - drugs don't come without problems - even the two that shan't be mentioned - legalisation doesn't come without problems, but if those problems are perhaps fewer and more controllable than keeping the drug illegal, shouldn't we consider it? People are doing it regardless George, all the issues you state above are already here, we just aren't dealing with them very well.
George Smiley said:
Of course alcohol can be an aggravating contribution but that genie is out of the bottle, do you think weed has less impact?
It is a gateway drug, normalise it’s use and people will look for that stronger hit, people who may otherwise not consider it. Much the same as vaping is considered safe it seems there has been a lot of good work in reducing smoking being overturned.
Your two locations suffer not just from alcohol but drugs, weed is not safe the compounds can and do lead to psychological issues and despite the bullst, can lead to dependency.
Legalisation will definitely lead to a larger uptake in younger people and this will impact on their brains development
https://youtu.be/q8jJsyZhRyc
Am I ignoring beer and cigarettes? Yes, as they are legal so don’t form part of the rational debate. But talking about pot, sure cpd May be beneficial but the rest of the drug not so cool or safe.
As we know thc is the chemical that gets one high but this also leads to anxiety and contributes to psychosis. This is countered by cpd but typically the potencies don’t match.
You can spot a stoner a mile off, usually claiming they need weed to calm their nerves when it’s the weed causing the damage.
Which wouldn't be an issue if it were legalised and regulated. People who want the higher CBD ratio strains can buy them pretty much whenever they want instead of relying on whatever their dealer has in atm.It is a gateway drug, normalise it’s use and people will look for that stronger hit, people who may otherwise not consider it. Much the same as vaping is considered safe it seems there has been a lot of good work in reducing smoking being overturned.
Your two locations suffer not just from alcohol but drugs, weed is not safe the compounds can and do lead to psychological issues and despite the bulls
t, can lead to dependency. Legalisation will definitely lead to a larger uptake in younger people and this will impact on their brains development
https://youtu.be/q8jJsyZhRyc
Am I ignoring beer and cigarettes? Yes, as they are legal so don’t form part of the rational debate. But talking about pot, sure cpd May be beneficial but the rest of the drug not so cool or safe.
As we know thc is the chemical that gets one high but this also leads to anxiety and contributes to psychosis. This is countered by cpd but typically the potencies don’t match.
You can spot a stoner a mile off, usually claiming they need weed to calm their nerves when it’s the weed causing the damage.
I agree in so far that some people really shouldn't smoke it, a high dose of THC does make certain types quite anxious or paranoid, and for some even psychotic. If cannabis were to be legalised, most of these people wouldn't smoke any more than they do now, surely?
Just briefly coming back to drugs and mental illness. I believe it's irrational to ignore other drugs when we're debating something that may enter the legal market and thus society at a new level, notwithstanding cannabis and alcohol are both already in society anyway.
I've seen several people over the years become psychotic with booze, and booze alone. Whether it's a legal liquid or an illicit flower bud or a potent pharmaceutical, people whom have a genetic propensity to numerous mental conditions and take any substance that affects the brain and mind are the ones who will have a problem pathologically.
Others who for one reason or another who don't get on with one drug have an overwhelming tendency to dabble and leave it at that.
andy_s said:
In all of this George consider - drugs don't come without problems - even the two that shan't be mentioned - legalisation doesn't come without problems, but if those problems are perhaps fewer and more controllable than keeping the drug illegal, shouldn't we consider it? People are doing it regardless George, all the issues you state above are already here, we just aren't dealing with them very well.
That’s the meat of it. I think it should be evidence lead basically, Britain is comfortably behind the curve here so we can assess the outcomes elsewhere and make a decision.
Sambucket said:
citation needed
"Legalisation will definitely lead to a larger uptake in younger people"
Certainly hasn't been the case in Amsterdam. The above is just a repeat of the usual "opinion in the Daily Mail" type rubbish. "Legalisation will definitely lead to a larger uptake in younger people"
Cannabis is widely available in the UK but the majority of people don't use it and will never use it.
I can immediatly think of 4 young people I know in their teens/20s whose lives have been completely ruined by too much strong weed when their brains were still in development. One of them is still living with the consequences nearly 20 years later. Dreadful stuff. No way should it be legalised.
Davos123 said:
It wasn't decriminalised, it was moved from Class B to Class C and it wasn't repealed for good reason, either. It was political posturing.
Chair of the committee Proff David Nutt was sacked for saying just that, then a few more of the same advisory group quit in protest. Brown in his death throes...lockhart flawse said:
I can immediatly think of 4 young people I know in their teens/20s whose lives have been completely ruined by too much strong weed when their brains were still in development. One of them is still living with the consequences nearly 20 years later. Dreadful stuff. No way should it be legalised.
I have heard this from numerous people in passing conversation/debates around weed, yet when the individual's cases are examined more closely, it's obvious that there were far more factors at play in that person's life that led to the, sometimes not dissimilar, long term negative effects ascribed to weed. Case in point would be a group of people on the fringes of my friendship group who were all stoners in 6th form, all under-achieving relative to their expected grades, all had a vague air of 'drop-out' about them. At the time I formed the same opinion of their weed use as you have. A couple of years later and through friends I found myself more closely acquainted with the same people. It quickly became apparent that they all had underlying life issues that far predated their weed use: mental health problems, parents divorcing, domestic violence, under extreme levels of pressure to perform academically from a young age. These were all people from established middle-class families. Weed just became a fun distraction from the conditions under which they were already suffering, it didn't cause them (and seemingly had no long term adverse affects on their life).
Likewise, by the age of 13 I was aware that my father, my uncle, my grandmother and my grandfather were all alcoholics and had been for some time and it had made them horrible (to say the least in some cases) to be around. Does that make alcohol an evil drug that should be changed to Class A and have a £10m govt anti-alcohol campaign thrusting out how touching alcohol will turn you into a slurring, partner+child-beating, raging irrational fiend? No, it had spiralled to become the only way those people had developed to cope with the stress of being over-worked/PTSD from war, child abuse and domestic violence. How would the 98% of non-alcoholic alcohol users feel about having it banned?
There are arguments for why the control of any drug is necessary, including weed. However one cannot hold the position that weed should be illegal but alcohol should not be, that's a level of cognitive dissonance, ignorance, hypocrisy and fundamentalism unworthy of being taken the slightest bit seriously.
That's before even getting onto the health/economic/social arguments for weed legalisation, which are all much stronger than my small narrow point above.
As for the gateway-drug argument, I only ever seem to hear this put forward by people with very limited knowledge/exposure/use of weed. An earlier poster basically covered it with 'lifestyle is the gateway to harder drugs', not weed. If weed had any significant propensity to be a gateway drug, 10-20% of my generation would be smack addicts by now.
Edited by Complex on Wednesday 7th August 17:33
There is compelling evidence that teen use of weed is more dangerous to mental health, than adult use.
But this issue is not unique to weed. It is true for alcohol too. Teenage years are a vital time for brain development. There is research into teen use of alcohol on young brains with similar findings.
Unless there is evidence that teen use will go up with legislation, i don't see the relevance.
But this issue is not unique to weed. It is true for alcohol too. Teenage years are a vital time for brain development. There is research into teen use of alcohol on young brains with similar findings.
Unless there is evidence that teen use will go up with legislation, i don't see the relevance.
lockhart flawse said:
I can immediatly think of 4 young people I know in their teens/20s whose lives have been completely ruined by too much strong weed when their brains were still in development. One of them is still living with the consequences nearly 20 years later. Dreadful stuff. No way should it be legalised.
Yeah! Keep it illegal to save more people like your friends from it's dark evil clutches!Erm...
A new Economic Inquiry study finds that marijuana access leads to reductions in opioid-related deaths.
The study examined how the changing legal status of marijuana has impacted mortality in the United States over the past two decades. Investigators found that legalization and access to recreational marijuana reduced annual opioid mortality in the range of 20% to 35%, with particularly pronounced effects for synthetic opioids.
https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/economic-...
The study examined how the changing legal status of marijuana has impacted mortality in the United States over the past two decades. Investigators found that legalization and access to recreational marijuana reduced annual opioid mortality in the range of 20% to 35%, with particularly pronounced effects for synthetic opioids.
https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/economic-...
Oakey said:
A new Economic Inquiry study finds that marijuana access leads to reductions in opioid-related deaths.
The study examined how the changing legal status of marijuana has impacted mortality in the United States over the past two decades. Investigators found that legalization and access to recreational marijuana reduced annual opioid mortality in the range of 20% to 35%, with particularly pronounced effects for synthetic opioids.
https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/economic-...
Interesting. The study examined how the changing legal status of marijuana has impacted mortality in the United States over the past two decades. Investigators found that legalization and access to recreational marijuana reduced annual opioid mortality in the range of 20% to 35%, with particularly pronounced effects for synthetic opioids.
https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/economic-...
It almost, but not quite, encouraged me to search through this and other such threads and quote every 'gateway drug' and 'lead to harder drug use' comment.
Correlation is not causation of course, but one wonders if this is consistent for all countries that have eased the cannabis legislation. It remains to be seen whether the report stands up, but it does seem to negate the gateway suggestion.
I don’t rate the gateway drug thing. If people want to try drugs they may well start on cannabis as it is freely available. That doesn’t mean cannabis made them want to start trying drugs it’s just the first one on the list. If it didn’t exist and someone wanted to try drugs they’d just start on the next one up like speed or Mandy or coke or whatever
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff